Then why are nannies paid so little?
If this were true, then why are nannies paid so little? Even if you take into account the non-pecuniary benefits received by nannies, their compensation falls way short of $138,000 per year.
Market comparisons like this have a lot of problems given the disparate opportunity costs faced by different individuals, as well as the supply comparisons.
When I first read that article, my first thought was, well who says someone's going to hire them? Can't be an opportunity cost if you won't be getting an opportunity. How many mothers are able to get a 2 hour psychology gig here and there?
Posted by: justakim | May 03, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Huh! Has somebody had a similar studies regarding fathers?
Posted by: Ashish Hanwadikar | May 03, 2007 at 12:38 PM
And I suppose, then, that working fathers do nothing but work. That is, they do no yard work, soccer coaching, marriage councelloring, child psychology, personal shopping, financial manager, painting the house, etc., etc., etc. Has any agency done a study on all "unearned" income for people who don't stay at home? I suppose that my salary would easily double or triple if one counted such things.
Posted by: pawnking | May 03, 2007 at 01:45 PM
When the supply considerably exceeds demand...
Posted by: True_Liberal | May 04, 2007 at 05:10 PM